why is anyone surprised that the IIHS is anti-motorcyclist, and full of crap? Judging by most insuranse co.'s reluctance to insure any bike with a modi***** of performance, and general negative attitude towards bikes most of them display, it's a given that their own political organ will slam bikes as flaming murdercycles from the pits of hell, I'm sure they'd be happier if we all stayed home and watched TV, like contented children, coddled in a cacoon of safety, generously provided by our kindly benifactors @ the insuranse company of our choice, I tried to explain to my agent once that if a person hits a tree at 90mph in his car, you'd call him an irrisponsible fool, If the same person hit a tree on a bike , the first thing out of your mouth would be "motorcycles are dangerous", talk about water off a ducks back, it's hard to argue with a closed mind.

I'll look at the SD resident/non-resident breakdown and post the results here when I get a chance. I've already done the helmet law/no helmet fatality state rates (per registration), but I'm going to have to dig them up. ISTR that the rates are very close. As for the Florida results, a year-over-year comparison (before and after repeal) shows a small increase in fatalities due to non-use of helmets. In the first half of 2000, when the helmet law was still in effect, deaths increased by 43%, from 87 in the first six months of 1999 to 124 in 2000. Presumably, that relfects an increase in the number of motorcycles and riders, since the helmet law was not a factor.

In the second half of 2000, after repeal, deaths increased by 48% over the same period in the previous year, from 91 to 135. If the 43% first-half rate of increase had continued through the second half of the year, the second-half toll would have been 130 rather than 135.

That excess of 5 deaths might be attributed to repeal of the helmet law. While the human loss is certainly tragic, the numbers are nowhere near what we were led to expect.

They parse out the bad words with an engine that looks for certain character strings. Those may occur in the front, middle, or end of a word you use, but still get the asterisk treatment. All the bad words get caught as well as parts of other words. I think you already know how to get around such stuff.

Nice comment on SA. But I can assure you that the majority of policy makers on nearly any issue you care to consider not only do not understand the first thing about data collection or statistical analysis but will ignore even the most lucid explanation of the facts and how they were obtained if it runs counter to what they want to hear. Most people, alas, are interested only in the facts that support their point of view and nothing else matters. Statistics don't lie now and never did - but the people who use them sure do.

This would be a great project for some doctoral student without any axes to grind. I, for one, would be interested in finding out what the available data really says.

Good point. You should know given your occupation. I have some questions about why rates are increasing so fast maybe you can shed light on it.
[*]Liability insurance is required in most states right? But liability is what you do to others and their property right. So I am not sure that motorcyclists as a rule cause much damage to others/property. So why should liablilty rates for motorcyclist rise faster than for autos?
[*] Comphensive coverage covers the bike right? So I can see theft causing increases but again accidents should not cause a increase faster that auto rates??
[*] So it comes down to collision coverage like you said? But most people don't carry it? Sounds fishy

I compared fatalities per registered motorcycle in helmet-law vs. non-helmet-law states for 1998. Helmet law states (all riders must wear them) had 6.14 fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles. Non-helmet-law states (either no one has to wear them, or only minors do) had 5.78 fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles.

Do you feel the least bit remorseful for slamming the credibility of the AMA now? The AMA is constantly fighting against these ridiculous charges from different political groups, mostly insurance based, that are geared towards, best case, raising our rates and worst case, taking away our right to ride at all. Do you really think that the AMA conceding to a mandatory helmet law will stop these kinds of attacks? More to the point do you really think that you as a motorcyclist should be spouting off that our only governmental support has lost all credibility because they refuse to support such mandatory helmet laws? What makes you think that denigrating the AMA publicly, as you have done previously, helps support our cause?

Look if you want to support helmet laws, go ahead you can do that. All I ask is that you chose your forums more carefully. Don't try to condemn the AMA, and all the good they do for us as motorcyclists, because of their view on one issue. If you want them to change their view, first if you haven't already done so join the AMA! Then write them and tell them your viewpoint in a constructive manner. Don't go out on public Internet chat boards and lambaste them as a bunch of organ donor buffoons with no credibility. How can we change the publics’ perception of the AMA and motorcycling? Start with yourself....

We use cookies to improve your experience on this website and so that ads you see online can be tailored to your online browsing interests.
We use data about you for a number of purposes explained in the links below. By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of data and cookies.
Tell me more |
Cookie Preferences